About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is that -- mentors than i have had with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was
from georgetown, serve as my chief of staff at the c.i.a. and then followed me to the pentagon as my chief of staff. and also someone who's had a public affairs at the pentagon, george little, who is also someone who both graduated and later taught here at georgetown. talented young individuals who have been at my side every day for the last four years at both the c.i.a. and the pentagon, and i am deeply grateful for their work for me and on behalf of the nation and i am deeply grateful for georgetown for training such extraordinary public servants. and speaking of extraordinary public servants, i think many in this audience know that there's a georgetown professor that the president has nominated to serve as the next secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate they need as the nation emerges from more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another jesuit institution, santa clara uni
is astounding. the pentagon needs to be pared down. me the pentagon to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for times. -- the pentagon needs to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for times. you agree with this general perception that senator hagel -- chuck hagel made. that would be great. >> that is a good question. it is a fair question. i cannot speak for senator hagel. my interpretation is that it is along the lines of something that secretary gates used to say. we had accumulated over the decade post 9/11 when our budget was going up every year. when your budget goes year and year out, it is fair to say we have a management problem, all of our managers, it was easy to reach for more money to solve your managing problem, whether it is a technical problem in a program or something like that. it was noticeable to me that the logistics in some places that have accumulated over the decades. that is my secretary gates started his efficiency initiative, which i was part of. our efforts to reform the system improved our performance. in parallel, we have absorbed billions
kill tv, jay johnson, a pentagon stop lawyer admitted, quote, if i were catholic i'd have to go to confession, unquote. mr. petraeus' departure presents mr. obama with an opportunity to halt the c.i.a.'s drift toward becoming a paramilitary organization and put it back on course. for all the technological advances america's made in the decade of fighting al qaeda, it still needs all the old tricks it learned in the day before spy satellites and droughns drones. more and better human intelligence in sources on the ground will result in more accurate targeting. that would be a yemen model that actually worked and a lasting and more effective counterterrorism legacy for mr. obama's second term. gregory johnson from "the new york times." another good article by patrick pool on june 6 of 2012. obama's assassination czar, a relatively unnoticed article, this is from the article, quoting, by associated press reporter kimberly dozer two weeks ago outlining new obama administration policy changes which consolidated power for authorizing drone attacks and assassinations under political ap
that there is any role for the government beyond providing for defense and funding the pentagon. that is the view of some. it is not the view of the great majority of the american people. i think the president will propose -- nobody knows what the president will say -- i think he will propose lots of ideas about how we can support them -- to spur innovation in this country. the government has had an important role in basic research. i mentioned the national institutes of health. you have other agencies, in the energy sector or other sectors, that can help provide seed money for those sorts of things. host: the ranking democrat on the house budget committee, representative chris van hollen, our guest on a newsmakers. the "usa today" put it in one word, jobs. this is available online at usatoday.com. a point from joseph ramirez -- from inside "the new york times ," there is this -- a couple of other details from this piece -- from the body of this story -- two other points, first on the issue of immigration, the president will say that he intends to make good on his promised to revamp the nation's
of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i would say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training, which is absolutely true. if you talk to the lawyers that work with the defense contractors, they think they will have a field day care and some had testimony last year that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of their savings. but beyond that, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for future contingencies. the point is that it does not just readiness. it hurts us in the real world today. there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration's savings for other more targeted savings so that you save this amount of money, you're still fiscally responsible, but you don't get defense and these domestic p
.m. eastern a report on defense spending and modernizing the pentagon budget. the japanese prime minister is visiting washington. he will be talking about japan's future of 4:00 p.m. eastern of the center for strategic and international studies. >> its blockade is the principle no. n -- principal naval strategy of the northern states, the principal naval strategy of southern states is commerce. one gun right there, but if you are going after merchant ships, one is all you need. if you caught a merchant ship, the idea was to come alongside and accrue on board, take it to a court where it could be adjudicated, sell it at auction, and you get to keep the money, but because they depend entirely on the profit motive, the ship owner pays men, the ship hires the officers, he expects a return on your money. without friendly ports where they could be condemned and sold, you cannot make a profit on a private hearing. therefore, confederate private peering died out almost immediately. maritime entrepreneurs found out they could make more money blockade running. >> the his story and craig simon looks
. the president following -- traveling to newport, virginia, an area happy with pentagon contracts, military construction, and the navy shipyard. what are you looking for? guest: the most interesting thing will be debates in the senate. if democrats are able to win over enough republicans to get a compromise deal through, that will really upset the equation. it would be very much unexpected. but that is maybe our one chance to offer the sequester at this point. more likely, it will be a vote where democrats put a plan forward, it cannot garner enough republican support, and it fails. a republican plan is put forward and also does not pass. the democrats control the senate. then, republicans will say the democrats could not pass a plan. the democrats will say, republicans have one to do what? they blocked a compromise plan in the senate. there will be a lot of finger- pointing, a lot of gamesmanship. it will be interesting to see if one side or the other is able to garner a political advantage. host: justin sink, who is following this story for "the hill" newspaper. >> here is a look at our
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)